The UK has announced a key role in developing long-range missile capabilities alongside European allies, according to a recent press release from the Ministry of Defence.
At a NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels, Defence Secretary John Healey confirmed the UK’s participation in the European Long-range Strike Approach programme, a multinational effort to enhance Europe’s defence systems by the 2030s.
This programme will see collaboration between the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland, aiming to develop cutting-edge long-range missiles designed to improve NATO’s collective air defence.
The announcement is part of the UK’s broader strategy to bolster NATO’s eastern flank. Healey signed a new defence roadmap with Estonia, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to holding thousands of troops from the Army’s 4th Brigade at high readiness, prepared to defend NATO’s borders.
This agreement also includes the deployment of advanced weaponry, such as Challenger 3 tanks and Boxer armoured vehicles, to Estonia in times of crisis. Healey said: “As global threats increase, the UK’s unshakeable commitment to NATO has never been more important. We are boosting our support for Estonia, with thousands of troops ready to deploy rapidly to the Russian border.”
Another key aspect of the UK’s involvement in NATO’s defence strategy is the DIAMOND initiative, which the UK will lead to improve NATO’s integrated air and missile defence systems.
The initiative is designed to enhance the interoperability of air defence systems across Europe, ensuring a stronger and more coordinated defence against missile attacks.
The Defence Secretary highlighted how the project is aligned with NATO’s future goals, stating that it would “strengthen the way European NATO allies coordinate their air defence against missile attacks.”
Good news indeed.
How could the UK, France and Germany all have the same long range SAM?
We are going for CAMM-MR alongside Poland, with the option of SAMP/T. France are all in on SAMP/T and VL MICA. Germany have Patriot and IRIS-T.
This sounds like a good idea but no idea what it will actually output.
The UK can have both land based CAMM and Aster as they will on the T45, shared inventories, familiar systems. Why is so hard to get some current mass together and have an eye to future technologies at the same time?
Well France Italy and the UK have a shared long range SAM and shared anti ballistic missile…there is also being more joined up on detection I suppose and there are a lot of other nations that the big three in Europe..so I suspect it’s about ensuring Europe goes down a European missile route…after all Germany has purchased patriot..they don’t really have skin it it’s game..maybe France, UK and Italy are offering it a bit of skin in the long range missile game ?
Indeed, that last paragraph about interoperability makes me think this might be as much to do with making sure Germany’s Patriots and Iris-T can properly integrate their search and targeting capabilities with the UK/French/Italian/Polish CAMM and SAMP/T. Like CEC for land-based systems.
That would be my take, the movement is already towards radars, sensors, command and processing et al becoming modular and missile agnostic. Poland presently is very much doing just that incorporating various missiles with various ranges and capabilities often with their own related sensors operating through a single command and control system. This makes complete sense, it gives flexibility the opportunity to use best in class or good enough cheaper alternatives while allowing continuous upgrading and enhancement without having to change everything. It’s similar to what’s happening in new generation fighters separating key elements but ensuring they can communicate and… Read more »
What is the point of wasting ÂŁbillions on new capabilities such as this when our military have huge problems elsewhere? We cannot retain sufficient trained personnel in any of the three armed forces. Hugely expensive assets such as the new Astute SSN, loaded with the latest Spearfish, are alongside because the RN has too few submariners. A carrier strike group has just deployed without a FSS ship! Now it seems that REME have insufficient helicopter engineers to maintain the fleet – and this now affecting pilot training. Similar problems remain unresolved with RAF fast jet pilot training. The Army is… Read more »
It’s not wasted. We have to stay ahead technologically of our rivals. In a major crisis getting personal is the easy bit, you just call up what you need and basic soldiers etc take a few months to train. Developing the tech that gives you the edge in battle takes years and a lot of money. You have your priorities the wrong way round. Now I don’t disagree that currently there are issues in all the areas you’ve brought up. They need dealing with, but priority one in spending in modern defence is R&D, your entire armed forces can be… Read more »
In no way does it take a few months to train soldiers. Of any kind.
You are thinking about this in the wrong way. It’s not about numbers of soldiers, or sailors etc, it’s about deployable capability. That takes years of technical training, experience and individual careers to be effective. You can train an infantryman in 6 months. But he needs to join a section with a LCpl (3-4 years), a Cpl (5-8 years) and be overseen by a Pl HQ where the Sjt has at least 8 years of experience. The Coy HQ needs a Major, a WO2, a CSjt and Signals detachment etc. The Support Company have years of experience as do the… Read more »
You are fundamentally correct this will make systems and platforms potentially far more effective and long lasting, strengthening where required without having to remove perfectly good systems for a lack of overall compatibility.
Simply because the only significant threat to the Uk itself comes from long range air attack . Be that sea based cruises missiles, land based cruise and ballistic missiles, long range drones or air launched weapons…the only way to actually hurt the UK and force it out of a war is to hit it hard via the sea and air…so it’s the one area we need to have a shed load of investment in….the reason we are actually weak to this is because of the very thing you suggested we disinvested in this area for a very long time.
Agree. This is just more posturing and grandstanding by HMG. They are sadly as good at that as the last lot.
No where in the article does it say they are spending billions or that they are buying anything of substance, it is an agreement to improve how air defences of different nations work together. It could just be a strategy document about how batteries are placed in the event of a war to provide max coverage.
At last a voice of reason and common sense.
I think the idea is to create a scenario where flexibility and inefficient costs are reduced and making best use of what’s available. Not saying that will happen but it’s a noble cause and definitely required otherwise collective defence is hamstrung and inefficient for the sake of self serving national policy making. This potentially gets the best of both worlds.
Spin. Previously we heard that SACEUR wanted the 3 UK Division as the “Strategic Reserve” Which makes sense, the Eastern European nations are at the coalface geographically, and 3 UK is garrisoned in the UK save for some of its equipment forward deployed in Germany and the EFP BG in Estonia. If we expand the EFP BG in Estonia from an already small Armoured Division, it is not a SACEUR reserve. It cannot be in two places at once and is already hamstrung keeping a simple BG in Estonia. I know elements of the military are “double hatted” all the… Read more »
“Why not come on UKDJ and explain?”
Daniele – an outstanding suggestion. The issue really is about the incompetence of the MoD in managing the ÂŁbillions of taxpayers funds provided and it’s inability to convert said funds into kit and trained personnel. Whilst having a departmental strength of about 65,000!
Healey should be asking why a small country such as Israel with a population of about 8 million, surrounded by enemies, with a fraction of the defence budget that we have, is able to wipe the floor with it’s adversaries.
A significant amount of its budget comes from the USA.
It also uses conscription to bolster numbers.
👍 yes while some lessons could be learned there, it’s rather comparing apples to cucumbers.
The other interesting bit is committing to have an armoured brigade at high readiness for the Baltic states intervention. That’s all very lovely but the UK only has 2 armoured brigades, if you’re committing one to very high readiness for a specific region. Well I’m just not sure that’s a commitment you can make without having three armoured brigades.
Then it is not the SACEUR reserve if it is tied to one area. It is one or the other.
And yes, with only two, how is it even possible?
Maybe the army is about to be transformed!
Maybe Pigs might fly….and then the RN and RAF also need investment.
Yes indeed, far to many commitments for the resources allocated..there are only three states, either… 1) you only commit to the level of resources you have, which will always mean something suffers and there is a negative geopolitical cost or 2)you commit and resource to your commitments properly, there is a positive geopolitical gain with this but a negative in that it costs the tax base. or do the really stupid thing that will bite you very very hard ( which we have been doing for the last 20 odd years really,but gradually doubling down since 2010 as the world… Read more »
Yes 3 is certainly to much of a policy in recent times, Boris Certainly did it freely. Only works if it prevents a conflict makes things far worse actually if one kicks off agreed. Reminiscent of our guarantees to Poland in the thirties.
Geography really dictates we will be defending the Nordic States, Estonia is very much part of that strategy. Other Countries like Germany France, Italy, Poland will be more biased towards the eastern flank. The reason? If the northern flank fails Britain will as in the war have a dangerous adversary across the North Sea closer to Shetland than the Maui land us and with free access to the North Sea, Artic and the Atlantic on mass. The Baltic States are the doorway to that scenario and reverses the NATO control over the Baltic. I suspect Russia and its allies know… Read more »
Don’t get me wrong I think it’s the correct approach, I just don’t see how the British army can cover its commitments with only 2 armoured brigades.
Having read the comments I can only conclude that the only area of defence that is adequately funded and staffed is the MOD itself. 65000 at last count as apposed to 72500 regulars Now who does not think there is something fundamentally wrong here ?
I say give them guns then… though more likely thanks to them (as in 1940) it would be broomsticks.
A nice bit of propaganda and spin this.